Putting a public face to a person's faith. audio
1 Timothy 6:1-10
Let's pray.
Father we thank you for sending your Son to save us, and for providing the perfect example of a life lived fully for you. This morning as we reflect on your Holy Word please encourage us, challenge us, shape us, and transform us. May Paul's teaching us today 'sing and sting', 'wound and heal'. In the name of Jesus Christ we pray, amen.
Who thinks being a Christian is easy? I'm open to hearing hints because I'll be honest I don't find it comes naturally at all!
The biggest problem I find is that my faith isn't strictly my own personal affair, and it can't be. Because my faith's not just about me and it's not just for me. And this is really crappy because the 'me' bit is dead easy; ask Louise, and I reckon she'll tell you I've had it down pat for years!
So, what's really involved in being a Christian? You know I've thought about it over the years and I've gradually come to the conclusion that this is a pretty hard concept to flesh-out, and the answer isn't all that straightforward. If it was, Paul wouldn't have had to write the letter we're currently working through, or the two Corinthian letters, or the letter to the church in Galatia or pretty much anything really. Because if being a Christian was all about having a private relationship with God, then it wouldn't matter in the slightest how you and I interacted in church, or how we get along with people outside of church. It wouldn't matter how we presented ourselves to others, because it wouldn't matter what they thought.
And that's exactly what our culture promotes: have as much faith in Jesus as you like; just don't “put it out there on display for others to see”.
Over the past few weeks we've been working our way through Paul's first letter to the church at Ephesus, which he wrote to them through his young representative, Timothy. We've learned that Paul covers quite a bit of territory in the letter, and we've discovered that one of his primary concerns was that the Christians at Ephesus lived and behaved in ways that didn't bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ into disrepute. Paul knew the Gospel message wasn't just about informing people, but also to reforming them and, ultimately, transforming them. So he wove his letter around a common and well-understood series of Roman 'household codes'. He wanted to reinforce that the congregation's profession about themselves had to be matched by the outside community's confession about them. In simple terms if unbelievers didn't see solid evidence for reformation and transformation in their communal lives, then all the Gospel information in the world wasn't going to amount to much. The 'walk' had to match the 'talk'.
Let's look at what he has to say in our preaching passage for today.
Chapter six, verses 1 and 2a
“1 Those who carry the yoke of slavery must respect their own masters as deserving every honour, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be slandered. 2 Those with believers as masters must not be disrespectful because they are brothers; rather, they must serve them more faithfully since the recipients of their good work are beloved believers.”
Slavery was a fact of life in much of the world right up into the 18th and 19th centuries; and some argue it's still a significant problem in the 21st century. In Paul's day rich people owned poor people. Middle-class people owned poor people; even poor people owned poorer people! One wit of the day wrote that the sure sign of utter poverty was when a person didn't own even a single slave. Because slave ownership was so widespread and common, 'household codes' typically included general instructions about the slaves' responsibilities to their masters, and Paul takes this fact of life as a given. Paul doesn't introduce any teaching at all about how Timothy and the congregation should behave towards believing slaves, which seems a bit odd at first blush because Paul was well known for preaching a message that focussed on redemption and liberty through grace. Instead, Paul homes in on discussing the attitude of the believing slaves, on what their proper motivation should be. He requires slaves to behave towards their masters in a way that protects the 'teaching' from being slandered in the wider community. But did you notice that Paul didn't demand any sort of reciprocal quid pro quo from the Christian slave owners? We worked through Paul's letter to Philemon recently, so we should probably expect the same sort of encouragement for Christian masters to free their Christians slaves here. But there isn't a whisper or hint of this idea. Philemon lived in Colossae, which was only three day's walk from Ephesus, and Paul wrote to him and our letter to Timothy within a few years of each other (circa AD 62). Why the difference in emphasis, I wonder?
Because Christians met in the private homes of their well-to-do benefactors, the house churches of Ephesus included household slaves. It seems fairly obvious that Paul was concerned about the negative effect the gospel could have on the relationships between the slaves and their masters, as Roman put a lot of stock in the opposing concepts of honour and shame. If the relationships were handled poorly, there was very real potential for the congregation's influence in the wider community being undermined, so Paul's immediate focus is on the implications for Christian mission in the city.
So Paul started his teaching by considering and addressing two distinct slave-master relationships. The first involved believing slaves and their non-believing masters, with the second believing slaves and their Christian masters. Just as he did with the types of people he singled out for treatment earlier in the letter, Paul began by encouraging the congregation to give due respect to all slave owners. Some of them didn't belong to the congregation, but they own slaves who did, so for the slave's sake if nothing else, he wanted there to be harmony between them. I also reckon Paul intended them to grasp the irony of the relationship, because the word he used to describe the 'slave masters' was the same word he used elsewhere of God exercising sovereignty over the world's affairs. It's almost as if Paul wanted the slaves to understand their duty to their non-believing masters as Christian service they would ordinarily give to their one true Master in heaven. In any case, he was suggesting the social status of the slave owners was sufficient grounds for deference from the Christian slaves. Paul understood that it was the gospel and it alone that was the one means that could put the world to rights. So a poor Christian testimony by Christian slaves would lead to Paul being discredited within Ephesus. The immediate knock-on effect of this would be the rejection of his Gospel, which was suspect enough already. To Paul's thinking the eternal ramifications of the Christian mission among the Gentiles in the region was the most important consideration.
What about the second slave-master relationship, the one where both parties are believers and, therefore brothers-and-sisters in Christ? For starters, this sort of relationship was well outside the guidance provided by any of the established pagan 'household codes'. The issues were probably less pragmatic, but considerably more theological than what applied for pagan masters: What's the nature of a slave-master relationship within the household of God? And to what extent was the accepted institution of slavery compatible with the Christian faith? We know Paul tilted rather radically to the left in his views about hierarchical relationships this side of the cross, so there was a very real risk that some of the slaves in his churches might eventually reach the point of despising their believing masters if they refused to put the Christian ideal of freedom into concrete practice.
What's remarkable is that it's the slave who's asked to regard his master as a 'beloved brother', and not the other way around. It's the powerless extending grace towards the powerful. It's the chattel who's given responsibility for exercising the ministry of Christian reconciliation. Why? The church's witness to the 'name of God and the teaching' is meant to reflect the topsy-turvy expression of servant-hood that was modeled by Jesus Christ. It's not about standing on one's rights; to the contrary, it's about seeking the welfare and the benefit of others, despite the personal cost.
So much for what the text meant. We now have to reflect on what it means.
I've heard this passage preached a couple of times over the past twenty-seven years. And to be honest, I don't think trite applications about Christian employees doing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay really cracks the mustard. Sure the principle's true enough, so far as it goes, but the main point seems to be about intentionally choosing to model grace without expecting others to meet their Christian obligations to us, first. It's to have a focus towards service that doesn't come with strings already attached. And this boils down to developing and expressing a proper attitude. True service-that's the kind that's pleasing to God-begins with the heart, and ends with concrete actions that are of benefit to others. It's theology-in-practice. As you go about your life this week can I challenge you to reflect on how to best respond when presented with opportunities to die to self, in order to live for others? Will you allow yourself to be motivated by a heart for service? Or will you dig your heels in and demand your rights?
Let's keep going.
Verses 2b-5
2b Teach and encourage these things. 3 If someone teaches differently and does not come to agree with the healthy doctrines about our Lord Jesus Christ-teaching that accords with godliness-4 he is arrogant and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest, a craving for controversy, and for quarrels about the meaning of words that provoke envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction among people who are deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means to gain.
We'll come back to our passage in a moment, but I'd like to point out something interesting first. I don't know if you've noticed, but direct references and indirect allusions to money, and its effect on people, occur throughout the entire letter. For example, in chapter one we were introduced to a group of men Paul identified as 'false teachers':
3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.
Putting their back-to-front doctrine aside for a moment, the word translated 'stewardship', οἰκονομία, is a common Greek financial term. It's also the root for our modern word, 'economy'. Perhaps Paul was hinting that these 'prophets' were trying to profit at the expense of the congregation.
Then in chapter two verses 5 and 6 Paul reminds the Ephesian church that Christ Jesus gave himself “as a ransom for all”. This word specifically referred to the price paid to redeem a captive.
In chapter three we find that one of the key character traits of an approved overseer is that he “isn't a lover of money” (verse 3). Similarly, deacons shouldn't be “greedy for dishonest gain” (verse 8b). To Paul the capacity to teach 'sound doctrine' and to serve the Church of God faithfully, had to do, in part, with one's attitude to money.
Later, in chapter five, we discover that the 'true widows' were to be supported financially by the congregation. They were identified not only by their age and family circumstances, but also by the years they devoted in selfless ministry towards others. It seems that a few 'less-than-true' widowed lasses, and certain of their married girlfriends, were in the habit of running about spreading gossip and generally causing mischief. Likely as not these were representative of the sort of women who Paul directed were not to be given a pulpit, and equally as likely, these 'younger widows' were smitten by the false-teachers that caused the ruckus in the church in the first place. But just in case the Ephesians over-reached and swung from one extreme to the other, Paul went on to state that those men who ruled the church well, particularly in preaching and teaching, deserved to be honoured and to be paid for their efforts (verses 17 and 18).
It seems not too much has changed in two thousand years. False teaching that's tied to a fixation with money and the generating of wealth by some in the church seems to be just as much a problem today as it was back then. As we'll see shortly, this is completely the wrong approach to take, and is ultimately counterproductive to developing a robust and vigorous Christian spirituality.
Let's return to our passage, and consider it in two parts. Verses 2b through 4:
2b Teach and encourage these things. 3 If someone teaches differently and does not come to agree with the healthy doctrines about our Lord Jesus Christ-teaching that accords with godliness-4 he is arrogant and understands nothing.
Paul urges Timothy to lead the congregation well in his absence, to teach them and encourage them to consider the 'healthy doctrines about our Lord Jesus Christ'. He assures Timothy that when these doctrines are embraced and put into effect, contentment and Christian unity results. The content of 'the teaching' was to match what Jesus Christ had modeled about 'sufficiency' during his earthly ministry, and which Paul had taught and modeled to Timothy. If you read between the lines a little, you'll notice Paul was contrasting the behaviour and testimony of the 'false teachers' to his own: Paul reflected Jesus, while the false teachers reflected Judas, and his concern with the coin purse. The lesson for us is that spiritual leadership in the Church not only concerns the nature and the substance of what's being taught, but also the character and the substance of the person doing the teaching.
'Healthy doctrines', those orthodox teachings about Jesus Christ and his attitude towards status and wealth, lead to godliness. 'Unhealthy doctrines', however, promote avarice and arrogance, and they demonstrate ignorance in the person promoting them. The former is positive, and builds people up in faith to serve. The latter is negative, and makes room for the full-blown effects of sin by feeding human pride and greed.
I'd like to share a phrase I use a lot in my teaching and my apologetics ministries. And it goes like this: good theology leads to good doctrine; good doctrine results in good ethics; good ethics promotes good behaviour; and good behaviour bears fruit in good Christian relationships. You can summarise the whole thing in four words, 'good root, good fruit'. The flip side of course, is that bad theology inevitably results in bad Christian relationships. 'Bad root, bad fruit'. So how do we generate this good theology?
It isn't easy. Arriving at good theology requires a mix of 80% perspiration and 20% inspiration. It takes effort. It involves regularly putting aside time to seriously and prayerfully study Scripture, alone and with the rest of the congregation. And it requires us to learn how to think critically, and engage theologically with others in community. Why should we do this? The answer's as simple as it is challenging. It's not the vicar's and the curate's responsibility to keep us on the doctrinal straight-and-narrow. Paul advises that it's our job to encourage them to stay orthodox in their preaching and teaching! In a strictly practical sense, we can't be mutually accountable for sound and doctrinally orthodox teaching if we struggle identifying the boundaries of what it is to be sound and orthodox. If you doubt me in this, spend some time reading the next edition of 'The Melbourne Anglican'. We all have to make an effort to learn enough good theology to be able to add our voice to the church's ongoing theological conversation.
Let's now briefly look at the 'report card' for what happens to a church when teachers go down the wrong path, and take others along for the ride:
4b He (the false teacher) has an unhealthy interest in craving for controversy, and for quarrels and word-battles that provoke envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means to gain.
The opposite of unity is disunity. Dress it up however you will, controversy never builds people up, it always tears them down, and it eventually leads to a range of social-spiritual problems that have no place in the household of God: envy, dissension, slander, and thinking the worst of people. These are traits that if left unchecked and unchallenged will not only destroy a congregation from the inside out they'll also destroy any chance of presenting a positive witness about Christ and his Kingdom in our community from the outside, in.
Finally, and it beggars belief I know, but there are actually men and women, pseudo-preachers of sorts, who sincerely believe the cornerstone to the Christian gospel is about turning a dollar! Some of them wear white suits and have television programs; others have chart-topping worship bands and television programs. But they're only successful because there's a massive market fuelled by sincere Christians who are encouraging them! If you're one of them, STOP! Don't get up at 6.00am to watch Kenneth, Joyce, Creflo or Benny! Don't buy that book that promises you '7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential'! Don't go to that conference in Sydney each June to 'Shout to the Lord!' Just don't do it! By the way, there is a really good Christian conference that's held in Sydney each June, but it's at Hunters Hill not Baulkham Hills! I'd be happy to talk to people about it later, if anyone is interested.
We now come to the final verses of our section for today, verses 6 through 10:
6 But godliness with contentment is profitable, 7 for we brought nothing into this world, and so are able to take nothing out. 8 If we have food and clothing, we should be content. 9 Those determined to be wealthy, however, are tripped up into temptation and the trap of many foolish and harmful desires, which will plunge them headlong into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Some who have aspired for wealth have wandered far from the faith, and in doing so, they have impaled themselves with many griefs.
In various letters, and at various times, Paul taught that true contentment results from knowing Christ, and from living in the knowledge of the fullness of God's grace. He now indicates that this kind of contentment provides freedom from the distractions of wealth. A simple life, where one's daily needs are met, removes our natural inclination toward comparisons and self-centred envy, and it defuses the negative effects that this destructive trait has on our relationships within the church and without. Attitudes to money, and our practices using it, are among the most obvious ways that the Christian approach to life challenges and destabilises the cultural norm.
Let's consider a few practical applications. 'Keeping up with the Joneses' is an expression I think we all understand. But we city-slickers have a knack for turning social and economic competitiveness into something fast approaching an art-form! Sometimes our contentment with life almost seems to depend on us living having the right job, living in the right suburb, in the right kind of house, with the right sorts of cars in our double garages. But if we buy into this nonsense, we can easily place ourselves at significant risk. Focussing on generating material, rather than spiritual, wealth will result in spiritual shipwreck, and this will lead to God's inevitable, and final, judgment.
To make this point Paul reworked what was a well-known proverb of his day. A former slave and contemporary of Aristotle called Bion the Sophist once said, “… the love of money is the mother city of all evils”. Let's not misunderstand what's being said here. Money itself is neutral, it's neither good nor bad, it simply 'is'. But an unhealthy preoccupation with the stuff will lead to thoughts, and probably to actions that simply don't gel with an orthodox Christian lifestyle. So we need to have a robust and biblical theology of both money and wealth that honours Christ, that is compatible with our faith, and that is doable. There's an extraordinarily sane book in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series written by Craig Blomberg called, 'Neither Poverty nor Riches: a biblical theology of possessions.' It's a good investment for around $20 from Koorong, and is well worth a read for those who might be interested.
Anyway, I'd like to wrap up my sermon this morning by sharing a pearl of wisdom from a late first century Jewish sage named Rabbi Jose ben Quisma.
He said, “My son, even if you give me all the silver and gold in this world, I want to live in light of Torah nonetheless; because in the hour when one is separated from human life, and he has no more silver, nor gold, nor jewels, nor beads, only Torah and good works will accompany him.” (m. ͗Abot 6.9).
We get to choose quite a bit in this life. But as Christians we're also called on to willingly surrender certain of our rights to others, for the common good. 1 Timothy teaches us that the orthodox information contained in the Gospel message causes reformation and transformation when it lands on fertile soil. It reminds us to be others-focussed rather than self-focussed; service-oriented rather than serviced-oriented. And it teaches us to be content, whatever our lot in life. If nothing else remember, 'good root, good fruit'.
Let's pray.
Dear God we bless you for calling us to be a part of the Church; for filling us with your Spirit; and for giving us the ministry of reconciliation to a broken and hurting world. May we continue to grow in grace and good works; may we continue to be challenged though opening your Word; and may we authentically represent your Son in our communities. We pray for these things in the name of Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. Amen.
